Canadian Steele

GRE score: 1330

Verbal: 740, 99th percentile

Math: 590, 50th percentile

Oh well, 1330 is still a very good score.

Ainge of the BANPC has informed me of a list for canadian bloggers who do a little universitas on the side.

Check it out.

I think it would be great if we could get a blogroll out of it.

I have a bunch of posts planned (and a round-up post to clean up the areas I promised I would visit, but have neglected to do so) but I will be unable to write as often as I would wish right now. You see, I have the pain-in-the-ass GRE test coming up on July 29th, which will consume most of my free time. However, I will do my best to post when I can.

Speaking of the GRE, have any of you taken it? If so, any tips, comments, or resources that you think are helpful would be great. Justin at FlashPoint, I’m looking at you. He had a great idea for a student blogroll, which would be a handy resource for things such as this.

On a more somber note, you will notice my lack of commenting on the London bombings. For some reason, an impersonal blog post does not do justice for me. It does not attain the sentiment merited to be expressed, at least, not in the immediate aftermath. Like Declan has also said, I think a forum dedicated to debate is an improper one for such sentiments. However, to remain silent, when given an opportunity like the one we bloggers have, may be worse. So, in any case, I would still like to express my sympathy and well-wishes to those in London, and around the world, who have been subjected to hardships such as this, and to those who continue to face them.

Our second installment. This time the fight was brought to me. A blogger known as Embarrassed to be Canadian (whose site is apparently just a bunch of funny pictures of John Kerry) managed to draw me into a fight that was somewhat off topic, but it had to be done.

And I am wondering if it was a good idea or not. The criteria of Post Mortem is to leave your opponent spluttering, effectively ending the thread. This time I killed my own thread. Hmmmm… That doesn’t sound too smart, does it? Well, at least it enables me to squeeze out another post.

And don’t forget to give me your blogging duels, as well.

An interesting phenomena discovered by social scientist was a revelation that, at first, seemed counter-intuitive. It was commonly believed that to know a person’s attitude on certain subjects and situations was to be able to reliably predict their actions. To know “John” hated ice cream would allow you to predict how John would behave when offered ice cream, right?

Well, what the experts were astonished to find was that attitudes do not account for actions very well at all. In fact, the general rule discovered was that attitude accounts for 10% of the variance of behaviour, meaning you are still uncertain what an individual will do 9 out of 10 times.

With a title like that, where am I going, you ask? Hang on…

Now, what I find the most interesting is, in fact, behaviour generally leads to attitude change - completely fascinating. Once John eats ice cream, even after proffessing abhorrence for the stuff, John is very likely to change his feelings about ice cream. A simple example, one that could be eplained different ways, but this phenomenon is a proven relationship; behaviour causes attitudes.

So, if action feeds attitude, can laws change your own ardent view point? Can your strongly and deeply held belief actually be circumvented by legislation? Results from the laboratory and history resoundingly say yes.

For example, seat belt laws, in the beginning, were heavily opposed and viewed as an onerous and a waste of time. Now, seat belt use has risen exponentially as has attitudes towards their use. Desegregation and the various civil rights acts of the 1950’s and 60’s in the US were often met with outright hostility and even violence. Now, this type of behaviour is viewed as bigoted, discriminatory, and immoral. Nearly everyone in the US favours integration in the not only the educational system, but in the public realm as well.

Interestingly, this type of evidence lends itself to the idea that morality can be legislated. However, this is not the aim of this post. I could endlessly debate, on either side, such a nuanced and complex concept, and I am sure you could too. What I want to relate this to is the passing of Bill C-38.

Officially recognizing gay marriage is a move to uphold the basic rights and freedoms guaranteed to us as Canadians, and as human beings. To deny such to a certain group, one that has historically been denied equality and continues to be denied is to marginalize that group while promoting immorality. Canada has taken a historic step, one that we should be proud of. Of course there are others who do not feel the same as I. For instance, Brent Colbert proposes to continue the fight for traditional marriage, the people at Novopress have continually advocated for the protection of what they deem as important values.

I am here to tell those people that the fight is over. The social forces and mental processes involved in the phenomena I described above are already hard at work. In time gay marriage will gain the recognition it deserves from Canada as a whole, and discrimination will take a severe blow. Some of your fellow traditionalists have already shifted their perceptions (somewhat, at least) to align with the recent legislation. Measures taken to ensure safety, equality, or morality are often fully recognized for their worth, and Bill C-38 is no exception. So, not only will you get over the passing of this bill, in time, you’ll come to believe in it.

Well, it is pouring in Winnipeg, again. This city seems eternally overcast, while half of that, I’m sure, is only perceived, it still seems forever gray.

It is funny. There is something wholly its own about this city. Winnipeg emits a duality, and a love/hate dichotomy exists for every person who lives here. While today may be ashen gray, a promise of gold lingers above. Every day of sun has you looking to the horizon, or over your shoulder, trying to catch the gloom that seems to live out of the corner of your vision. And that dyad is Winnipeg. It may not make sense unless you have lived or are living here.

It is hard to put a finger on it, but Winnipeg’s dichotomy can be characterized through its highs and lows.
It is a city known for its arts, and yet its people are responsible for the injection of its local, obese radio DJ into 34th place on the CBC’s “The Greatest Canadian“.
The NHL found a home here for an abysmal franchise, and left.
The AHL gave the city the Moose, who seem to be the visiting team no matter how often they win.
Winnipeg was once supposed to be the capital of Canada, now we have an overly large legislature serving as a reminder.
Winnipeg is home of the “almost was”, or the “could have been”. But, it is also the home of a diverse and vibrant culture, a place of “we are”.
…And I recently ran into a beautiful song that captures the essence of Winnipeg, and the see-saw relationship its residents have with the city. If you can, download listen to it.
It is called “One Great City” by The Weakerthans. If you are a ‘pegger, you’ll identify with it immediately. If you aren’t, then maybe the song will give you an understanding of what it is like to live “at the forks”.

“One Great City”

late afternoon another day is nearly done

a darker grey is breaking through a lighter one
a thousand sharpened elbows in the underground

that hollow hurried sound of feet on polished floor
and in the dollar store the clerk is closing up
and counting loonies trying not to say
i hate winnipeg

the driver checks the mirror seven minutes late
crowded riders’ restlessness enunciates
the Guess Who suck, the Jets were lousy anyway
the same mood every day

and in the turning lane
someone’s stalled again
he’s talking to himself
and hears the price of gas repeat his phrase
i hate winnipeg

up above us all,
leaning into sky
our golden business boy
will watch the north end die
and sing ‘i love this town’
then let his arching wrecking ball proclaim:
“i…hate…winnipeg”

More: Apparently, Manitoba is the only province without an official motto.

A recent poll by Ekos Research Associates Inc. has caused many to jump on an ever growing band-wagon, condemning Canadians as Anti-American. The Saskatoon StarPhoenix reports:

Canadians believe U.S. President George W. Bush is almost as great a threat to our national security as Osama bin Laden, according to a government opinion poll obtained by the National Post.

The 1,500 people contacted for the poll, conducted last February for the Department of National Defence, listed “International Organized Crime” as the top danger, with 38 per cent ranking it as a great threat to security concern and another 50 per cent listing it as moderate

But tied for second in the poll were “U.S. Foreign Policy” and “Terrorism,” with 37 per cent rating it a great risk. Just behind those worries came “Climate Change and Global Warming.”

The results of this poll are being seriously construed. To fear Bush more than Bin Laden would be preposterous, of course, and that is exactly what the American parrots are reporting this poll shows. However, perceiving the current American administration as a greater threat than Al Queda is a completely different issue. To say a unilateral state, with whom we have been allied, has seemingly been in a race for hegemony poses a greater risk to our security than terror abroad demonstrates (at least some) Canadians ability to grasp the bigger picture. Through years of strong arm foreign “policy”, America has effectively buried Canada along with itself in a strong hatred of the West; found especially in the Middle East. Perceiving the totality of this threat as greater than that posed by the terrorists of the world is justified. This is especially true when the hatred that burns brightest is stoked simply by the pure fuel that is American action abroad.

What Americans are quite known for is their inability to accept blame; forget where the problem originated, the problem must lie with someone else. So, unsurprisingly, culpability falls on anyone but the Americans themselves. Hatred for Americans has no reasonable cause, apparently - the people of country X are said to be jealous - jealous of democracy, jealous of the American way, jealous of freedom. Forget who imposed the conditions leading to country x’s oppression, they only want what America has. Forget Saddam Hussein had the stars and stripes draped over his shoulders, and American artillery in his tyrannical hands, their hatred has its source in their lack of freedom only.

Now, even dissention has been brought under this ‘infallible’ blanket thrown over the electorate of the US, the edges of which are starting to encompass area north of the 49. “You are either with us, or against us” has been a moniker with which the Bush administration has successfully divided and conquered the voting public, and has been seeking to sway opinion abroad. Opposition is quickly devalued with words like “traitor”; the branding of liberal burns with the sting of an insult, now. People like Ann Coulter or Bill O’Reilly have great success as their views align perfectly with the administration’s agenda. The shift has been succesful, dissent=anti-Americanism. Currently, a tide of fear has arose in Canada, one that can only be assuaged by bending over for America. Celucci, the previous American ambassador to Canada, constantly ridiculed us for our lack of “loyalty”, saying friends don’t abandon each other in times of need (when in the real world, a true friend will stand up tell you when you have taken the wrong path), and this chorus was picked up by the weak of Canada. Anti-americanism became a cliche, a catch-phrase, even a sin, symbolic of a suppossed hostility and inferiority expressed by Canadians. The blame-shift came full circle once again.

This is fully demonstrated by the recent study done by the Fraser institute. Anti-Americanism was characterised by disaproval with the Iraq war, or negative attitudes expressed during post 9/11 or after we lost 4 soldiers to American fire. This is hardly a representative sample nor are these valid variables used to obtain the mythical “anti-Americanism” result. So, does the moral-eye at Fraser institute turn to the states to investigate possible reasons for this bias? Of course not. An outright insulting and deleterious view of Canadian culture as a whole is served up. “Garrison mentality” and immature cultural identity’s cause us to resent whatever it is America has. A culpable US is an option that is not even dismissed, it is outright ignored.

So, returning to the previous poll’s results, I find attaching anti-Americanism to anti-Bush admin. more than over-reaching. As I stated before, the results are justifiable, and Canadians should not have to feel guilty expressing such opinion. Legitimate dissention should never be cast so negatively. This is why I fear the Rachel Marsdens, the Tucker Carlson’s. The death of Respect is a movement forwarded by their likes, and is gaining momentum. To beware the branding of anti-Americanism is not only to understand the value of opposition, but to obstruct a greater deception. Whether they know it or not, Canadians are American’s best friend.

I’m extremely lazy today but I still feel the need to post something, so I thought I would provide some links to some excellent posts.

1. Andrew Spicer has an innovative post up entitled An Adaptive, Performance-Driven, Health Insurance System. It’s an interesting presentation that proposes to reverse the current supply-driven system into a demand-driven system, allowing “the health care market to provide services at adequate levels.”

2. Expect good things from POGG, Eh, as Timmy the G (Voice in The Wilderness), Jonathan Dursi (No More Shall I Roam), and mahigan (True North) join to make it a group blog with a lot of fire power.

3. Grandinite has a link to a picture of everything.

4. If you are like me (a human), you probably don’t like the vitriolic Rachel Marsden. This Coulter-bot has recently taken up shop at the National Post and has stayed true with one mindless, sensationalist, apathetic, stereo-typing, disrespectful piece after another. Thankfully, Canadian Cynic has taken up the enormous task of critiquing Ms. Marsden. So check it out and personally thank him.

5. Gauntlet is always a good read. His latest post is a critical look at O’brien’s stance and the system that allows such power.

6. Jay Currie has a secret plan to save the Canadian blogsphere, but he is not telling what that is yet. I’ll admit it, I’m interested.

Occasionally, I like to go slumming and pick fights with extremist or ignorant bloggers. For example, I found a delightful site on Timmy the G’s comment section, called Anti-Strib. It’s a mean little American right-wing blog that doesn’t mind discrimination, as long as they’re the ones doing it. So, I couldn’t resist. It is not hard to get them going. In any case, the short battle was closed down by yours truly. From hence forth, the act of pummeling your opponent until he is unable to reply, ending the thread, shall be called “Post Mortem“. This is a quick, but classic example. It was kind of an easy target, so I’m hoping I can post a tougher one later. If anyone else has examples of blogging beatings administered by themselves or someone else, I’d love to see them. I know it is petty, but it is still satisfying.

Well, apparently Matt Good has become part of the BlogsCanada Politcal family. Fine, I guess, but there has always been something that has bugged me about celebrities weighing in on public issue. I think my ire lies in the fact that no matter how invalid, biased, asinine, uninformed, tangential, or inane their opinion, the celebrity will always have considerably more power than the common person to spread their opinion. This type of unusual political power is not magically conferred by success in the entertainment industry, despite what some celebrities seem to think. Their opinion matters, of course, but no more than any other. This is not the reality, though. The weight the celebrity’s word carries is automatically attained regardless of merit. I’m sorry, but inequity gets under my skin.

In any case, I gave Matt’s blog a try. His post for today happened to be a query pertaining to the focus of the American media. A valid example, contrasting MJ coverage with the downing street memo, was raised in order to demonstrate the apparent disparity of attention given to relevant issues against the chaff of media. I would agree that the media does over-present the entertainment world, but the blame should not be placed on the media. Here is what I wrote as a comment on his site:

It is actually not that difficult to see why MJ’s trial generates more concern than world issues. It is a case of proximity and familiarity. A war in Iraq is in no way “real” to the American people, the sights and sounds of a distant people do not register in any genuine way. The white house is just as distant; holding the American government accountable on any issue falls on the far side of impossible. Where the people could not identify with the image of a wailing Iraqi mother or a belligerent leader, they are able to subsume the entity that is celebrity. Fame is characterized by its share of the spotlight. Faces and names are driven into the cultural identity, and these names, by default of notoriety, resonate with that culture. Michael Jackson is seen everyday, not ten feet from the sofa in even the meanest of living rooms. Controversial documents and war torn streets flicker and are gone, small pieces dimmed by the volume of the red, white, and blue parade passing in honour of itself. For the people of America to care, it would have to hit closer to home. So, the media, rather than being the scary censor, is actually the cultures biggest slave. Money drives the world and directs the camera’s lens. The media points and shoots where the people say. An unfocused and ignorant media is simply a reflection of the people it serves.

The blame, I would assert, lies with the public the media serves. Jon Stewart said on one of his shows that if Hitler had a show that would get good ratings, his show would be aired. I tend to agree. The scope of information conveyed by the tube tends to follow the trail of money, which is the littering of public. The American people have a real need for celebrity; they are obsessed with fame. And I believe this need represents a lack, so an attempt is made to fill in this gap. Celebrity represents the American dream. You know: the dream that is the quest towards total autonomy that is achieved through hard work and pledging belief in the American way. What happens is the disillusionment of this ideal. Obviously, not every one can be rich or totally free. To salvage the American dream, to play out that fantasy, the people demand an outlet, a process in which they can identify with those that have made it.

So the scene has done a complete revolution, one arc around the set. Where Matt Good, a celebrity, denounced the media for its coverage, we focus on the concept that the people must lose hold of the fame they are addicted to. Like an alcoholic, they love that which blurs their vision of reality, distancing them from what is truly important. To enjoy the drink of fame, one must enjoy it only socially, not to imbibe everyday the world of celebrity.

So, what am I asserting here…
-That the American culture is fundamentally wrong and completely without hope? Hardly. I think the American culture has within it a great value, one that is important for today’s conflicts abroad. However, this cultural blind spot has deeper roots, rears its head in many forms, and is the cause of the anti-Americanism so abundant in the world today.
-Am I saying fame is evil and entertainment is dross? No. I wish to only remind that entertainment be remembered for what it is, a luxury, and should receive the attention befitting it. To change lays precisely within our power, not the big, scary, media monster. It is sometimes difficult to align yourself with that which is distant, that which is unfamiliar. Our smaller needs at home tend to outweigh the greater needs of those past our boundaries, so an effort, one that we bloggers are certainly a part of, must be made to widen that lens, and watch in the right direction.